Roger de Coverly wrote:So am I justified in accusing Andrew Farthing of trying to introduce a scheme where you need a paid for licence from the ECF to play league chess? He denied it a few months back.

The short answer is no.

The long answer is:

At no stage has Andrew "tried to introduce" anything, in the sense that he's had an agenda. He's simply implemented the wont of Council. Council said it wanted something based on membership, so that's what Council was presented with and ended up voting for.

I think anyone who has heard Andrew speak about this - and the Birmingham League has on two occasions - will agree that he's been entirely neutral throughout. He had no preference for which funding mechanism Council decided upon, so long as there was one.

If we look at the timeline, he:
(1) Presented four options, which Council narrowed down to two it wanted more details on
(2) Presented the two remaining options with more detailed information, at which point Council voted for membership
(3) Compiled a consultation paper on membership, which invited comments
(4) Put a final proposal to Council based on (3)

At every stage, what he's done is react to the desire of Council. I'd have thought that was something you'd approve of.

Alex Holowczak wrote:
I have a horrible feeling that you're going to have a big Game Fee bill because you've no clear plan on how you're going to enforce/implement it locally.

Quite right, no plans exist. Perhaps that's why we are asking those who are in favour of the ECF's scheme, whether they intend to allow non-members to participate in their league and what they will do about the Game Fee bill.

Certainly clubs could collect the Â£ 12 or Â£13 per head. If it's more than their current league entry fees, they too, have to decide how to raise the extra revenue. Remember too, that it's supposed to be less work than running Game Fee.

Alex Holowczak wrote:
If we look at the timeline, he:
(1) Presented four options, which Council narrowed down to two it wanted more details on
(2) Presented the two remaining options with more detailed information, at which point Council voted for membership
(3) Compiled a consultation paper on membership, which invited comments
(4) Put a final proposal to Council based on (3)

By my book, three different schemes have been presented, all with contradictory features. None of them took much note of the views of those opposed to membership, which personally I would categorise as "no to compulsion" and "no to exclusively per head schemes"

It would have been quite possible to have presented a scheme which was neither compulsory, nor per head. Look no further than Scotland.

Roger de Coverly wrote:Quite right, no plans exist. Perhaps that's why we are asking those who are in favour of the ECF's scheme, whether they intend to allow non-members to participate in their league and what they will do about the Game Fee bill.

In which case, Bucks should probably get around to organising such a meeting.

Roger de Coverly wrote:Certainly clubs could collect the Â£ 12 or Â£13 per head. If it's more than their current league entry fees, they too, have to decide how to raise the extra revenue. Remember too, that it's supposed to be less work than running Game Fee.

We're continually told that it is for MOs. It's less work for the Office according to Andrew's review. I don't think it'll be simpler from day 1, but once the process settles down a bit, I think it will be simpler. Given that this will be new for much of the country, and processes need to be set up, the processes may well need to be refined for a year or two before everything settles down.

Roger de Coverly wrote:By my book, three different schemes have been presented, all with contradictory features. None of them took much note of the views of those opposed to membership, which personally I would categorise as "no to compulsion" and "no to exclusively per head schemes"

The schemes presented were an evolution of the feedback presented to Andrew's consultation paper. If it appears that "no to compulsion" was ignored, then that's because they were in the minority, as the vote at the AGM showed.

(1) Do we want to grade the event? I'll propose yes, because I get asked the question often enough that it seems to be something people are interested in.

(2) Do we want to insist on Membership, or pay the penalty Game Fee? Â£2/halfresult is cheaper than Â£12/person: our league has 5 games. Most of the societies who played at our event last year play in other leagues, so will already be members by the time our event racks up. I will propose that we insist on players needing to be bronze members, on the basis that this (a) might encourage clubs to join leagues to get more chess for their money, or more likely (b) get them playing more internal chess that they send to me to be graded as part of their BUCA affiliation fee. I don't think we'll fall into the trap some people fall into with this discussion where we have an argument about Â£2.

Alex Holowczak wrote: It's less work for the Office according to Andrew's review.

I rather think that should be revisited as by my reckoning, the Game Fee process has become two levels more complicated as a result of the ECF's scheme.

Whilst I suspect a few lines of sql would make quite a difference, that expertise is discounted as far as the ECF is concerned. How else do you explain the inability to report coherently the sources of the ECF's income several months after the end of the accounting period?

Alex Holowczak wrote:
(2) Do we want to insist on Membership, or pay the penalty Game Fee? Â£2/halfresult is cheaper than Â£12/person: our league has 5 games. .

Don't forget that under the rules for 2011-12, the Game Fee per head would be 5 * 58p, in other words Â£ 2.90 per player.

Just playing five games exaggerates the effect, but per head costs are more expensive than Game Fee at a sensible level for low activity players.

If you could get it classified as a Congress under the new rules, the cost is "only" Â£ 6 per non-member.

I hadn't forgotten that. Under the equivalent Game Fee rules for 2012/13, if we had them, it'd be 5*75p = Â£3.75. If you play 11 league games per season on top of this, that brings you up to Â£12. There are many players at Universities who pay this sort of amount via Game Fee already.

The Articles clearly define a Congress as an individual event and a League as a team event, although there is room for Board discretion. I agree that it'd be an avenue worth pursuing, but ECF has to be careful about making exceptions. What's more, if the BUCA event were classified as a congress, the Unis who play league chess would have to pay more. So I'd rather we remained needing to pay Â£12 for bronze, which may encourage people to submit more internal games for grading, and perhaps even club together to join a league.

Roger de Coverly wrote:Berks usually finds more things to argue about.

Roger de Coverly wrote:
If you ignore the ECF's new scheme and continue to submit results for grading, it is my understanding that the Game Fee due in July 2013 will be Â£ 2 (or whatever Finance Council sets in April 2012) multiplied by the number of half games played by non-members.

That's absolutely correct.

A pertinent question is why would any sensible league adbicate it's responsibilities in such a mind-blowingly stupid way? If a league does not want to pay the ECF then they can simply choose for the league not to be ungraded. It involves no expenditure whatsoever but I suspect that many players will not want this option, even if faced with a massive increase in their annual chess expenditure equivalent to as much as 20p per week.

If the league wants to continue to be graded then they need to comply with the rules as voted for by Council.

Sean Hewitt wrote: If a league does not want to pay the ECF then they can simply choose for the league not to be ungraded.

That's absolutely correct, the league could vote that games in its league will be wholly or partly ungraded. If the ECF can afford the loss of income and head count, then so be it. The logic runs like this. You introduce a rule which says that all players in some of the divisions of the league have to be ECF members. At the same time you recognise that your local objective is to promote the playing of chess rather than preventing it with player exclusions. So you run a division or two, possibly even double round rapid play with no membership requirement and no ECF grading. Local Congresses, particularly one day ones, could do the same. It's not a good solution in the longer run because in the closed shop league you will get an increased number of defaults and in the open league, players may not want ungraded games.

Sean Hewitt wrote: If a league does not want to pay the ECF then they can simply choose for the league not to be ungraded.

That's absolutely correct, the league could vote that games in its league will be wholly or partly ungraded. If the ECF can afford the loss of income and head count, then so be it. The logic runs like this. You introduce a rule which says that all players in some of the divisions of the league have to be ECF members. At the same time you recognise that your local objective is to promote the playing of chess rather than preventing it with player exclusions. So you run a division or two, possibly even double round rapid play with no membership requirement and no ECF grading. Local Congresses, particularly one day ones, could do the same. It's not a good solution in the longer run because in the closed shop league you will get an increased number of defaults and in the open league, players may not want ungraded games.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago...

Sean Hewitt wrote:I suspect that many players will not want this option, even if faced with a massive increase in their annual chess expenditure equivalent to as much as 20p per week.

Sean Hewitt wrote:
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago...

Sean Hewitt wrote:I suspect that many players will not want this option, even if faced with a massive increase in their annual chess expenditure equivalent to as much as 20p per week.

It's not 20 p a week, it's Â£ 12 up front because the ECF have removed most aspects of pay as you go.

You might be right that county and league AGMs will vote in favour of "closed shop" rules. I wouldn't count on it though. For County Execs considering their policy, putting the ungraded case on the table has to be one of the options. What I don't know and is something that could make a difference to a stay/leave decision, is whether the grading rules (or local grader) would allow results by non-members to be partly or completely removed from a grading file.

Roger de Coverly wrote:If your understanding of the new scheme is different to this, please inform us.

It's "similar to" and "different from".

When I am not sure of something, or am about to challenge someone, I usually take the precaution of looking it up. When I tackle someone's use of language, it is occasionally prompted by the urge to tease, more often because I consider the precise meaning important. Usually I ignore slips, real or imagined, we all make them. My concern is whether I can understand what another writes, which need not be the same as what is intended.

From Fowler's Modern English Usage, second edition (1965), page 130:

That d. can only be followed by from and not to is a SUPERSTITION. To be 'found in writers of all ages' (OED), and the principle on which it is rejected (You do not say differ to; therefore you cannot say d. to) involves a hasty and ill-defined generalization. Is it all derivatives, or derivative adjectives, or adjectives that were once participles, or actual participles, that must conform to the construction of their parent verbs? It is true of the last only; we cannot say differing to, but that leaves d. out in the cold. If it is all derivatives, why do we say according, agreably, and pursuant, to instructions, when we have to say this accords with, or agrees with, or pursues, instructions? ...
...
... The fact is that objections to d. like those to AVERSE to, SYMPATHY for, and COMPARE to, are mere pedantries. This does not imply that d. from is wrong; on the contrary, it is 'now usual' (OED); but it is only so owing to the dead set made against d by mistaken critics.
...

Yes, the book does spell "generalization" with a "z". Preferring an "s", which I do instinctively, is also fine. The book also brings into play the Oxford comma and it is Fowler, who has his critics. Much ado about nothing, I suggest.

Alex Holowczak wrote:Simon Spivack is usually good on things like this...

Thanks, but no thanks, I make no claims to expertise. It is better to look up a good source. Everything I see is curved, I have difficulty differentiating between full stops and commas. Foreign letters such as "Ð¿" and "Ð»" are quite challenging for me.

Simply posting at all could well offend someone. Indeed, I already have a fanbase (sic). One of whom Alex has infuriated. I'd rather Alex included me out in his disputes.

E Michael White wrote:You're joking he thinks the plural of forum is fora.

As the reader can see, this is an unprovoked personal attack upon me.

I do consider E Michael White rather arrogant and careless. For the record, I am content to use both "forums" and "fora", thus E Michael White is entirely wrong to use the definite article. That much is obvious. As to my usage, in a formal setting I'd opt for "forums", in an informal it would depend upon euphony. I'd try to avoid using both in the same article, although, being human, I have probably so blundered.

The alert will be aware that E Michael White sometimes resorts to mentioning that certain wise men (sic) back his interpretations. He further goes on to paraphrase what they have allegedly said. However, I cannot recall the name of the author of a bizarre interpretation ever being given, never mind a precise quote. He dropped some of this nonsense when it came to the Laws of Chess soon after Senior Arbiters started posting on the English Chess Forum.

So what do the dictionaries say about "fora"? A forty year old edition of Chambers is on my lap as I type:

n. pl. -rums or -ra 1. a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest. 2. A medium for open discussion ...

If E Michael White is to be believed, this dictionary is wrong.

Turning to the more up to date Concise Oxford English Dictionary, one has a differentiation in that fora is again identified as plural, however, it should only be used when talking of meeting places and such in ancient Rome.

Anyone who takes the trouble to Google should be able to verify what I have written.

As for E Michael White's travails with clocks. They are the stuff of legend. I have captained hundreds of matches, ranging from four to twenty boards. It is safe to say I have had a supervisory role of sorts for thousands of games. I have never had to fight the vast armies of problems that beset poor E Michael White. When a clock fails, one rewinds it, or replaces the battery; if that doesn't work, the clock is replaced. An attempt is made to set the correct times. It quite simply isn't a problem, as this normally happens well before a time scramble.

Likewise E Michael White is perfectly entitled to believe that the Laws of Chess of more than fifty years ago are still applicable. For myself, I prefer to believe those Senior Arbiters who say that these Laws have been superseded. In the matches and tournaments in which I have played or organised, there just haven't been the vast catalogue of disputes that vex the unfortunate E Michael White. Most incidents are the results of misunderstandings or tiredness, I have been guilty of some myself. Fortunately, most people move on and forget these things. Most disputes do not alter the result from what obtains from the chess board.

There are too many people in the chess world who recall ancient disputes and never let sleeping dogs lie.

Perhaps Roger is right when he ignores personal attacks. They are time consuming, in a non-productive fashion.